These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29292412)

  • 1. Assessment of residual coronal tooth structure postendodontic cavity preparation using digital dental impressions and micro-computed tomography.
    Al-Nuaimi N; Patel S; Foschi F; Mannocci F; Austin RS
    Int J Comput Dent; 2017; 20(4):377-392. PubMed ID: 29292412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
    Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Rydén J; Thor A
    J Dent; 2018 Feb; 69():110-118. PubMed ID: 29246490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
    Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners.
    Jeon JH; Choi BY; Kim CM; Kim JH; Kim HY; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):549-53. PubMed ID: 26182854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An
    Sason GK; Mistry G; Tabassum R; Shetty O
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):108-116. PubMed ID: 29692563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of Tooth Preparation Design and Scan Angulations on the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Digital Scanners: An in Vitro Study Based on 3-Dimensional Comparisons.
    Ammoun R; Suprono MS; Goodacre CJ; Oyoyo U; Carrico CK; Kattadiyil MT
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Mar; 29(3):201-206. PubMed ID: 31994818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
    Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
    Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type.
    Kim JH; Son SA; Lee H; Kim RJ; Park JK
    J Prosthodont Res; 2021 Aug; 65(3):400-406. PubMed ID: 33116030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
    Wiranto MG; Engelbrecht WP; Tutein Nolthenius HE; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jan; 143(1):140-7. PubMed ID: 23273370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro.
    Zimmermann M; Ender A; Mehl A
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2020 Feb; 151(2):127-135. PubMed ID: 31883705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches.
    Favero R; Volpato A; Francesco M; Fiore AD; Guazzo R; Favero L
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2019; 24(1):38e1-37e7. PubMed ID: 30916255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impression of Subgingival Dental Preparation Can Be Taken with Ultrasound.
    Marotti J; Broeckmann J; Chuembou Pekam F; Praça L; Radermacher K; Wolfart S
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2019 Feb; 45(2):558-567. PubMed ID: 30454854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
    Müller P; Ender A; Joda T; Katsoulis J
    Quintessence Int; 2016 Apr; 47(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 26824085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models: An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis.
    Zhang F; Suh KJ; Lee KM
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0157713. PubMed ID: 27304976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.